[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> taking a break in this conference titled breaking through power, organized by former independent presidential candidate ralph nader. it will be back about 1:20 p.m. eastern time. we will bring you back your life right here as he sent to. a look outside the david mack complex at hofstra university, cited tonight's presidential debate. three imams will pay most of the five million-dollar price tag for this debate. one of those alum is david mack who is a businessman and in real estate. this is the fur-- third time hofstra university has hosted a presidential debate. the first university to hosted debates in three consecutive presidential races. some of the media here getting set up along with their transmission trucks and vehicles. hofstra university agreed to serve as alternate site this time around, but it was tapped

after right to see university in ohio announced that it would withdraw. the university's president said on the school's website that hofstra university was honored to be called on to host the debate and extraordinary privilege and responsibility. the debate stage where in 2012 mitt romney made his now famous binders full of women remark and also where moderator interjected to correct governor romney about presidents obama's response to benghazi. we will look as our camera roams the grounds of tonight's debate site.

>> a look inside here of the

book and the-- beer and food tent. outside the david mack complex, hofstra university, the side of the first of three presidential debates between nominee hillary clinton and donald trump. you can watch live coverage here on c-span2. we will start that when the debate starts at 9:00 p.m. eastern time, 6:00 p.m. pacific followed by reaction from officials and supporters of both campaigns.

>> some of the artistry involved outside of the david mack complex at hofstra university, the side of the first of three presidential debates between nominee hillary clinton and donald trump. again, live coverage tonight on c-span2 at 9:00 p.m. you can set-- watch some of the preview over on c-span at 7:30 p.m. donald trump and hillary clinton in tight races nationally according to a new bloomberg politics poll. in head-to-head matchup both candidates are favored 46% among likely voters in back in august secretary clinton had a six-point lead and with the third-party candidates included mr. trump has a two-point lead. libertarian gary johnson gets eight and green party jill stein 4%.

>> a look at a preview of tonight's debate in the two to follow as well as some candidates debate strategies. we talked with two people who love helped past nominees prepare and also a former debate moderator about what it is like a moderate one of these presidential debates. >> with the three presidential debates and the one vice presidential debate about to get underway, what to expect from the candidate hillary clinton, donald trump and the ramie. a preview here on c-span, but first let's look at the schedule. monday's debate will take place on the campus of hofstra university in new york. nbc lester holt will be the moderator. that will be followed by the vice presidential debate on the

campus of longwood university in virginia. cbs elaine will be the moderator of that debate between senator tim kaine, democratic nominee and governor mike pence the republican nominee. the second presidential debate is a town hall meeting format on the campus of washington university in st. louis missouri. anderson cooper and a receipt mark that will be the moderator of those events. the third and final debate between donald trump and hillary clinton on the campus of the university of nevada, las vegas, and chris wallace of the fox news channel will be that moderator. joining us on the phone's annie carney who has been following this for politico. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> let's start off with target about donald trump and hillary clinton. what is their approach to monday night's debate? >> this is the most critical moment of the race for both of them. for hillary clinton she has been preparing in a standard way with

a big team around here-- her who have done debate prep for democratic presidential candidates a going back to the '90s and she has two goals. she needs to discredit him and make him look unqualified for the job and she also needs to get the voters a positive reason for voting for her. they both have really high unfavorables and this campaign with a serious speech has tried to show-- give voters something to vote for, not just against, so that's part of what she has to do on the stage of. donald trump, like the rest of his campaign has been going about prep in an unorthodox way. he has said that he does not want to do mock sessions with a hillary clinton standing. roger ailes has been advising him, but it looks like the rest of his campaign he might be winging it whereas hillary clinton has been poring over briefing books and doing this

the standard weight it gets it done and doing practice sessions, so like everything else she is doing a standard campaign and he is doing something else they want let me follow up on two specific stories, first with hillary clinton and her pneumonia and the talking points she had to give her campaign staff after first finding out about the pneumonia and then not disclosing it for couple days. does that fit into a narrative that has hurt hillary clinton going into the final stretch of the campaign? guest: i think the fact that she did not disclose it is-- did raise questions about transparency, which is along with the e-mail controversy, this is what has eaten away at her and favorability ratings. i think it was damaging because there is a narrative out there that she is very secretive or private and this idea that she thought she could just quote unquote

power through without revealing it set into that narrative. the question is if it would have been better for her to reveal it in retrospect, obviously yes, but they made a calculation that donald trump would be correct if she said she had pneumonia and possibly imply it's not really pneumonia, but something else. it did not work out for her in the end, but that was probably the thinking thereof not disclosing it. it also became apparent that she did not tell a lot of her campaign officials, but only a small group of people which fed into this idea that she is isolated with a small group of trustees around your and not even like her campaign manager apparently did not know she had pneumonia. again, that is all the questions of is she transparent, is she trustworthy. this debate is a moment for her to try to counter some of that give people a reason to believe in her and trust that she is the person that is qualified to be president. host: finally, what do you think is the overriding question for donald trump that we will hear from lester holt?

guest: for him, i think the thing here is that the bar is lower for him. i think people have lower expectation for how he will do here. people know he is-- hillary is an experienced debater and debates are high points for her. donald trump, i think if he can get through 90 minutes of being able to answer questions on substance and not attacking her in a personal way or talking about his hand or whatever the hijinks he pulled in the primary debate, people will think he did okay. someone i was talking to, a democrat, compared him to the dancing bear test like if a bear doesn't have to dance well, but if a bear dances at all you think it's impressive. that's the democrats fear that there will be some sort of lower bar for him and it looked like he did well even if

it's not a performance equivalent to hers. for lester holt, think the challenges fact checking donald trump in real time. matt lauer got eviscerated for letting donald trump say he was against the war in iraq when he was not and it just a leading statement going challenged. i think there is a lot of pressure on the moderators to hold these candidates accountable in real time and so donald trump will have to contend with explaining himself and not just saying things that are factually untrue and ending away with it. host: any carney who covers politics for politico with her work available online. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: so, we want to look at some of those moments in this campaign and for hillary clinton 2008 and 2000 what to expect

during the first of three presidential debates and i went to introduce to you brett o'donnell who is the president of his own firm and for our conversation here has helped george w. bush, john mccain admits or on the end debate preparation. thank you for being with us be too good to be with you. host: what goes on behind the scenes that we don't see? guest: what you don't see is very very careful planning and preparation for these debates, most think of it as a couple of hours and debating someone else in a mock debate because we have seen it in television shows, but in reality it's many many hours. it's on a set that's usually built to specifications of the debate set themselves and careful planning and thinking through on the part of policy teams, on the part of communication teams exactly how they will frame their arguments and trying to plan out the moments of the debate that they can seize competitive advantage over their opponent. that's a very big part. i mean, debates are about two things.

thereabout message and moments. thereabout carry name the civic narrative through the debate that the press can write and about having moments in the date that will draw the attention of the press positively for your candidate, moments like reagan's lying on age to walter mondale or other famous moments, there you go again, reagan to carter. moments like that that draw attention in the debate positively you for your candidate and show competitive advantage over your heart-- other candidate. host: it was over a year ago that donald trump in a scene in debate at the reagan library and carly fiorina came up. she was one of the republican candidates vying for the gop nomination and here's that moment stephen ms. fiorina, want to ask you about this in an interview in last week in rolling stone magazine donald trump said the following: look at that face. would anyone vote for that? can you imagine that the face of our next president?

mr. trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance. please feel free to respond to what you think about his persona. [laughter] >> you know, it's interesting to me, mr. trump said that he heard mr. bush very clearly in what mr. bush said. i think women all of this country heard very clearly what mr. trump said. [applause]. [cheers and applause] >> i think she has a beautiful face and i think she is a beautiful woman. host: as you look at that moment , is it likely that something potentially like that could happen between hillary clinton and donald trump? guest: i don't know if it will be over hillary clinton's beauty, but it may be over her personality. if he remembered 2008 and she ran against

barack obama her personality came up and barack obama famously said you're likable enough, hillary. i think that is still a question for hillary clinton and it is something that could come up with donald trump. certainly he has made her stamina and issue in this campaign and he seemed to question whether or not she had the appearance to be president of the united states and people asked if it's about her looks. it would be a mistake for him to bring that up he needs to stay focused on substance. there are a ton of substantive tax he can go after hillary clinton on, but if he moves it to the intensely personal it can backfire. host: in that same debate in seamy valley, california, the issue of jeb bush and his wife came up. >> governor bush, mr. trump has suggested that your views on immigration are influenced by your mexican born wife. he said that quote if my wife were from mexico i think i would have a soft spot for people from mexico. did mr. trump go too far in evoking your wife?

>> he did. you are proud of your family just as i am and to subject my wife into the middle of a raucous political conversation was completely inappropriate and i hope you apologize for that, donald. >> i hear phenomenal things that i hear your wife is a lovely woman. >> she is absolutely the love of my life and she's right here. what are you apologize to her. >> i said nothing wrong. >> here's the deal, my wife is in america-- mexican american. she's american by choice and she was this country as much as anyone in his room and she was a secure border, but she wants to embrace the traditional american values that make a special and unique. we are in a crossroads now. are we going to take that oregano approach, hopeful optimistic approach, the approach that says you come to our country legally and pursue your dreams a great opportunities for all of us or the donald trump approach, the approach that says everything is bad and everything is coming to an end?

>> mr. trump. >> that they come into our country is an act of love with all of the problems that we have in some instances. we have wonderful people coming in, but with all of the problems, this is not an act of love. he is weak on immigration. in favor of common core, which is also a disaster he does not get my vote. host: courtesy of cnn, he did not apologize. he did not say me-- he made a mistake and that's been part of the trump persona during the campaign. guest: i actually thought that was a good moment for donald trump because he was able to move it from the personal, from jeb's wife, which jeb wanted to make it about and instead move it to the issue of immigration and so that moment ended up working for donald trump and not working for jeb bush. jeb bush needed to pin donald trump down and say you are going to apologize to this debate

isn't going to proceed, but donald trump was able to pivot the issue and move onto immigration and that is really what trump needs to do. trump needs to get the debate on the substantive. the substantive does include some personal things. includes hillary clinton's e-mails and how she handled them, but he needs to keep it on substantive and not personal. if he can do that it will be a long night for hillary clinton. host: that was a multiple candidate debate. donald trump and hillary clinton will face each other with no third party-- party candidate, just the two of them for 90 minutes. how the approach be different if at operable candidates? guest: for trumpet means he has to study up on issues. he has not sustained a 90 minute debate where he has had to talk policy for 90 minutes. he will have to do that this time. in the primary debates with multiple candidates he was able to fade into the background come about in this debate he will have to show he has command of the issues

and i agree with any that potentially the bar may be lower for him, but it is still there. there is still a bar that he has to pass that he shows he's competent and ready to be president of the united states. for hillary clinton i think the bars a bit different. i think for her it is the trustworthiness, but also the performative aspect. we have not seen hillary come out and really not joint project and it a vision for where should take the country, but be hopeful herself. one of the things that made it hard against-- card to run against barack obama was that he was likable and hillary does not project that as well. so, she has to walk a fine line between aggression and likability to make sure she stays on offense, but also does not cross the line. the same think that passed to do, but for her it's a bit more difficult because women face a tougher test with audiences, given gender communication roles and this is not something

that is made up. it's unfortunately it kind of unwritten rule in societal communication took there are a lot of studies out there that terrify us that say when men are aggressive they are viewed positively, but when women are overly aggressive they could be viewed negatively, so she has to walk a fine line in how she handles him, but also the kind of images she projects and in the commander-in-chief forum she stayed on defense most of the night. for her, this means doing the things that she can do well and she has done them well in prior debates, but i think it means a bigger game on the performance side. i liken this, these debates a lot to the bush gore debates where bush was not the national politician. he had been governor of the state of texas, but had not worked with national issues and the bar was kind of low for him in terms of issue preparation and then

hillary who, like gore, had worked in national shoes. she's been senator, secretary of state and grow is obviously vice president. people expected a lot out of him in those debates and he could never find his voice and i think that is a problem that clinton faces as well. she's still searching for that voice. she has not found it yet. host: one mistake back in 2000 with a different al gore showed up at the first, second and third debate here we will have some of those moments later with hillary clinton in previous debates. but i want to the back to something you said earlier about practicing one-liners. how do you do that and make it seem natural and not inauthentic? guest: its practice. it's really about practice and that's why i think that both candidates should be doing live practice. i liken this to a death like. a football team doesn't us at around and talk about the plays they will run. they actually practice those plays and run them

in a game. the same is true for these candidates. in order for them to seem natural, they have to be practice over and over and again with a standing there so that you can get a feel for how that exchange will go down. now, i think that trump has maybe had lines in prior debates. it's obvious he's extremely good at branding and so he has the branding notion down and he has thought of lines, but the question is how they thought of moments and how they will gain out particular moments in the debates where he can draw the press attention and really sees competitive advantage over her. the e-mail issue is certainly ripe for that. her handling of the clinton foundation is another issue that can come up in the debates in her issue as secretary of state what she did with libya policy is something he has talked about before p is the question is whether or not they had thought about how to

gain out those scenarios so they end up working in his advantage. in the bush example that you just showed it was clear that governor bush had intentionally thought about asking 12 to apologize, but he had not thought about what would happen if trump said no and so he did not really have a game plan for how that scenario would play out and that's the same thing that is true for trump. he has to think about what happens if couldn't responds in different ways to the attacks he levies. host: we know the moderators are also practicing their questions and from august of last year when of the seminal moments in the republican primary this cycle, megyn kelly of the fox news channel. >> mr. trump, one of the things people love about you is that you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. , the, it'd has its its downsides in particular when it comes to women. you have called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and discussing animals.

your twitter account-- >> only rosie o'donnell. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> your twitter account -- >> thank you. >> for the record it was well beyond rosie o'donnell. york twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's works in you once told a contestant on celebrity apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees peered does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge from hillary clinton who is likely to be the democratic nominee that you are part of the wine women? >> i think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. [applause]. [cheers and applause] >> i have been challenged by summoning people and i don't, frankly, have time for total political

correctness and to be honest with you this country doesn't have time either. this country is in big trouble. we don't win anymore. we lose to china, mexico , both in trade and at the border. released to everyone and friendly what i say and often times it's fun and kidding and we have the time, what i say is what i say and honestly, megan, if you don't like and i'm sorry. i have been very nice to you although i could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but i would not do that. you know what, we need strength. we need energy. we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. that i can tell you right now. host: from august 6, in cleveland, ohio last year, the first debate that took place for the convention the route, so let

me go back to how trump responded to megyn kelly's question. he pivoted to talk about jobs, the country, america, but then he brought it back to donald trump. guest: that was a mistake. attacking the moderator is not a good idea. they are not your audience. the audience are the people watching at home and your opponent. so, you want to keep your attacks focused on your opponent and you want to keep your message focused on your audience, the voters watching the debate. that means the moderators job is really tough, but the debater's job is particularly tough as well. now, there are moments when you need to go after the moderator, when they have made a terrible mistake. for instance, in the romney obama debate when the moderator inserted herself long way, actually, about whether or not president obama had called the incident in benghazi a terrorist attack.

so, moderators have to walk a fine line and its third difficult for them. they to keep the candidates back to check in the address the questions, but for the most part they should step out the fact checking job really should be the job of the opponent to say you are wrong about this issue because the debate is between them, not the moderator and the candidate, so the moderator has a tough job. debaters need to keep it from becoming personal about the moderators because most of the time that can come off poorly. host: you have advised president bush, senator mccain, governor romney. as you look back at the time you spent with these past republican candidates and nominees, was there a moment in your rehearsal and practices that stand out? guest: guess it one story i always hold fondly and that is with senator mccain during the primary rates.

we used to be much more relaxed with the senator in preparing him for debates and we had been going after then senator clinton for eight year mark that she had requested for a woodstock music memorial in new york. that earmark happen to be a payback for a campaign donor, so we were sitting in debate prep and we had thought about having a funny response, something that would capture the imagination of the press and senator mccain reminded us that he was a prisoner in the area during that time of woodstock and we all said, senator, you need to say that in this line and he asked how i do that and he thought about it for second and he said how about this and he said, let's use our line, which is, woodstock was a great, logical and cultural experience.

i would have loved to have been there, but i was altered up at the moment and that line got a standing ovation from the crowd. it was a great moment and shows that candidates in order for them to really perform, can't be programmed by a bunch of advisors. they had to buying them be participants and that was one of those great moments for senator mccain, fully immersed in the prep project and came up with this greatly networked. host: another moment from march of this past year in detroit, michigan, with fox news. >> i have a policy question for you. >> don't worry about it. don't worry about it, little marco. >> big donald. >> don't worry about it, little marco. >> gentlemen. gentlemen. >> number one absentee

record. >> i wanted to ask you a policy question. >> that's why the people of florida do not like him. >> mr. trump, your proposed would add $10 trillion. host: little marco, lying head crews, cricket hillary, he is quick to add a monitor. guest: and low energy job, which in my opinion was one of the things that really hurts governor bush and his candidacy. trump has been very good at branding. now, i think that little marco was not probably as effective as line ted and the others, but he's been very effective at branding and the question becomes can he move beyond the sort of sloganeering and branding and create moments and message. that's the question. the bar is a bit higher for him and his presidential debates. i thought that it was a

mistake for both marco and trump to get into this back-and-forth with sort in the name calling. some of the labels stuck and they did severe damage because they were not effectively answered in the primary process. the challenge for secretary clinton is can she effectively answer some of the branding that will come her way on monday night. host: under the category of the rules that don't seem to apply to donald trump here's another moment from another debate in cleveland, ohio august of last year and the issue up donations to a number of individuals including the hillary clinton and clinton foundation speed i will tell you that our system is broken. i gave too many people. two months ago i was a businessman. i give to everyone. when they call, i give and when i need something from them two years later, three years later i call them and they are there for me and that's a broken system. >> what did you get from

hillary clinton and nancy pelosi? >> for hillary clinton i said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. i gateway foundation that frankly that foundation is supposed to do good. i did not know her money would be used on private jets going all of the world. it was. host: from the fox news channel. that foundation and his own foundation likely to get a lot of questions in monday's debate, but the issue that the rules don't apply, most candidates which i away from saying i have given to candidates in the past and got things in return. guest: the rules have not applied to donald trump at all the cycle. i think that is largely because he is more than icon representing a feeling across this country that people are frustrated and angry with politics as usual. i have worked in the debates in britain and much of the same sentiment was there where people are tired of politics of usual being made promises and

not having the promises delivered upon and so i think that there is a larger segment of voters who are using donald trump to take that out on the political system and so they are willing to overlook some things that a typical politician will be-- would be held to. host: he said if you want to touch the debates the right way turn the sound off in watch the body line which of the candidates and you bribe 2000 al gore and george w. bush that famous moment where al gore literally moved into governor bush's space and that became an iconic moment in the 2000 election. guest: absolutely. and in 2004, wherein the first debate in miami, governor bush was-- then president bush was criticized for laying on the podium in his debate with john kerry. so, body language and how you say what you say matters significantly. researcher says it may

be that audiences take as much as 65% of meeting from how you say what you say, not just what you say and that's why i said earlier that hillary clinton has to pay attention to the presentational aspect of these debates as well and she has performed poorly in prior debates where even in the commander-in-chief form a couple of weeks ago if you turn the sound off and watch her, she would not appear very open, likable or someone you would like to sit down and have a conversation with. donald trump smiles a lot, very big, very-- he gets television and so he understands a presentational aspect of debate. she has to raise her game in order to match that. host: in advising president bush and senator mccain and governor romney can a candidate over prepare? what is the right balance? guest: well, i think the candidate can over prepare in terms of reading the briefing

book. it's got to be-- it's not an essay on his speed and it's not jeopardy. debates are really message and moments and so you have got to be able to sound like it's coming from the heart, not recite from the head and so it's very important that they not just study the briefing book, but actually think about how they will present these arguments to the public and have to be relaxed. so, if you over prepare a candidate you can get them tensed up and get them tight before debate. you had to find a way to keep a candidate loose and make sure they are relaxed going into that first debate because the first debate will be the most important and in fact the first 30 minutes of the first debate are the most important 30 minutes of all the debate. host: let's talk about one more moment in the campaign site and this is february of this year in

south carolina with the debate on the fox news channel and the issue of new york values that came up with the senator ted cruz going after donald trump. >> i think most people know exactly what new york values are. >> i am from new york. >> you are from new york , then you might not. they do. and listen, there are many many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of new york, but everyone understands that the values in new york city are socially liberal, pro- abortion or pro- gay marriage focused around money in the media and i guess i can frame in another way. not a lot of conservatives, out of manhattan. i'm just saying. [laughter] >> conservatives actually do come out of manhattan, including william f buckley and others just so you understand new york is a

great place with great people, loving people, wonderful people. when the world trade center came down, i summed-- saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully or humanely than new york. to 110 story buildings came crashing down. i saw them come crashing down and we saw more death and even the smell of death and it was with us for months, the smell in the air and we rebuilt downtown manhattan and everyone in the world watched and everyone in the world loves new york and love new yorkers and i have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that ted made a. host: from this past january, courtesy of fox news and the fox business network, that to the moment between ted cruz and donald trump. >> that moment was probably donald trumps the best from the

primaries and if that is the donald trump we see monday, that i think he is in for a good debate and that's what we have been seen over the last three weeks with donald trump much more disciplined on message. if he is able to be that disciplined and responding that he will have a good night because notice he did not take that attack personal. there was no lying ted or personal attack on ted cruz. there was a very eloquent counterattack about new york and what it means to be a new yorker and that was an attack that they had been having in the press coming into that debate. ted cruz wanted to continue to litigate it and donald trump ended it. host: let's turn back to your own experience first with president bush. what was he like and how did he approach the debates? guest: very much concerned with studying policy books, being very briefed on every single issue and then once we got

through that first debate started to turn his attention more toward the communicative aspect of it, but very much involved in studying and preparing for the debates. host: senator john mccain? guest: senator mccain love talking through the answers and the arguments of things that would happen. he would watch a lot of film of prior debates, but more relaxed in his debate preparation. host: and governor mitt romney? guest: very much a businesslike approach to debate prep where he would want things to be very formalized, talk through each strategy. he had a great team in place doing debate prep who would be in the room to talk through the policy implications, political implications and if there was polling data that was necessary to feed in as data points, focus on the policy side, experts and

foreign-policy domestic policy, so very thorough in preparing for those debates. host: brett o'donnell who is a veteran of republican campaigns and has advised president bush, mccain and romney. thank you very much for your insights p2 thank you for having me. host: we woke turn our attention to hillary clinton with what to expect in the debate. first, from our speak-- c-span video library who has hosted and moderated more debates than anyone else. he has done 12 of them and three years ago in 2013, he talked about the importance these debates have it in american politics. >> the presidential debates have become the only time during a presidential campaign with the candidates, usually two and sometimes three, are on the same stage at the same time talking about the same things. they come usually in october, with the election could close, maybe a month or only a

month or less awake. the polls show that in up probably 90% or more of the people have already made a decision as to whom they will vote, but for whom they will vote decision, some are leaning, some are not an mostly what they want to do, the issues are pretty much on the table and people have decided whether they are in favor of lockboxes for social security or debt ceiling or whatever all of those decisions have been made by the voters, what still remains to be seen and understood and decided upon is do i like this person. this person as a person do they come-- forget what the issues are. what if there is a crisis or something similar, hurricane katrina, what if there's another 911 were some major contrast of the crisis happens? how do i feel about this person? >> it's interesting you call attention city

because it is an candidates have to make people like them essentially and you spoke with bush 41, george hw bush who said that the debates are quote ugly. i don't like them. why did he say that? guest: he feels very strongly that it's all showbiz. in other words, one debate was a three-person debate with with bill clinton and ross perot. when he looked at his watch-- >> famous moment. >> and he said i looked at my watch and so they are all over me. has nothing to do with issues or whatever, but then he said in the interview with me, well, i said why were you looking at your watch and he said because this thing was boring me and i was looking to see when it would be over.

of those kind of things to the audience, saying it leaves an impression and it's a language impression, but it's a body language impression rather than a spoken word impression, so from a george hwb's point of view he just thinks it's ridiculous to have so much writing on these two, 390 minute exchanges of a presidential debate. host: his book am attention city and that's part of c-span twos book tv program available at c-span.org and we continue our look with what to expect any upcoming debates and we are joined with judd legum, editor-in-chief of think progress and today we are talked about hillary clinton picked you advised hillary clinton in 2008. when we pick up i'm what jim said. in today's youtube social media generation there is such significant and how they

perceive a candidate. guest: i think this is true in the primary debates, which is what i didn't 08, help prepare and it support this time also, i think the whole debate itself will be important just because you are tens of millions of people who will watch the whole debate, which is not usually the case, but what will happen is after those people watch probably hundreds of millions of people will be exposed to two or three things that happened over the course of a couple of hours that resonate in some way. it was either a good moment for a bad moment, someone was caught saying something that was not true or someone was caught in an awkward place or say something that pays them in a bad light and reinforces a existing narrative. this can have a real impact on the narrative that the campaign that continues. host: in 2016, her appeal, likability, trustworthiness, key

issues for voters for election day. you were in new hampshire the weekend before the new hampshire primary 2008, this debate and let's watch as the issues that resonated back then continue today. >> new hampshire voters seem to believe that those of you on this stage you are the most experienced and the most electable. in terms of change, they see senators obama and edwards as the agents of change in new hampshire mindset. my question to you simply, what can you say to the voters of new hampshire upon the stage tonight who see a resume and like it, but are hesitating on the likability issue where they seem to like barack obama more? >> well, that hurts my feelings. >> i'm sorry, senator. i'm sorry. >> but, i will try to go on. [laughter] >> he's very likable.

i agree with that. i don't think i'm about bad. >> you are likable enough, hillary. >> thank you. you know, i think this is one of the most serious decisions at the voters of new hampshire have ever had to make and i really believe that the most important question is who is ready to be president on day one. host: judd legum, where were you when that moment occurred? guest: i believe that took place at a college in new hampshire and they had the staff set up in one of the classrooms with a tv just watching it. i think it was clear that that was on import moment in the debate. it was a really important moment in the campaign, if you will recall. it was only a day or two before the voting occurred in new hampshire and hillary had just lost iowa,.

and if she were to lose iowa in the new hampshire back-to-back it would probably be the end and i think it was a moment that helps reconnect her to some of the voters, maybe broke down some of the stereotypes about her of not being approachable and not a real person. it was a human moment and it was kind of reinforced by now president obama probably being a bit more terse than maybe he had intended to be at that moment, but it was kind of contrasted with how she handled it and i think that combined with a couple of other things that happened in the week up to the election day probably swung things back in hillary's favorites ended up winning. host: can you remember if she was ready for that type of question? guest: i don't think that is a type of thing you typically prepare for. you really can't. i mean, i think that obviously something like

why are your likability numbers low can be something that comes up again and again and again, so i'm sure it's not the first time she answer that question, but just that home moment the way it played out from my recollection was not a scripted moment and in fact, if you try to script a moment like that it would not really come off. host: handicap if you would what we can expect during the debate because clearly the issue of credibility and trustworthiness will come up in a number of variations. how should she handle that? guest: gosh, it's a very tough question. i think that the way to do it is just to take it straight on. obviously-- >> the first debate between hillary clinton and donald trump starts tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern and you can watch live on c-span2. you can watch the rest of this debate strategy program in c-span's

video library as we take you back down to the daylong conference organized by ralph nader , breaking through to power. >> he has taught at the university of san diego school of law as well as visiting professor university school of law in japan. please welcome robert vaughn. [applause]. >> thank you very much. as a teacher, i was always a little concerned when i was assigned that first class after lunch, but we can move from their. one australian observer, whistleblowing concluded whistleblowing is the legal regulation and i quote most crucial to integrity, accountability and organizational justice in all institutions. even if you might be a

little skeptical about that statement, which by the way i am not, we recognize the whistleblowing is a powerful technique for holding the powerful accountable. i will describe the importance of whistleblowing by examining several different perspectives that are linked to different frameworks of account ability here can these are a reservoir of arguments and proposals for change. through them we can consider the history and the expansion of whistleblowing laws and breaking through power. but, i cannot begin this discussion without mentioning those whistleblowers who have change the perceptions of the public of whistleblowing and who have established the context and content of many whistleblower laws. but, without an appreciation of these persons whistleblowers become kind of insubstantial legal creations and appreciation of their

accomplishments and sacrifices make whistleblowing concrete rather than abstract, personal rather than statistical and emotional as well as analytical. i will not forget them as i speak and i ask that you do not. we are going to discuss these four perspectives, employment-- perspective, government perspective, the transparency or market regulation perspective and human rights. the new deal labor reforms in the 1950s develops an anti- retaliation principle that prohibited retaliation against employees for disclosure or violation of labor laws or workplace protections. in the 1950s a few courts particularly those in california used the anti- retaliation principle to restrict dismissible's of employees when those dismissals would be against public policy because those employees reported violations of

law by their employers, violations of both regulatory and criminal law. this history helps to explain why whistleblowing laws are usually treated as a subset of employment laws. the character of monitored society also explains this conception of whistleblower law picked activities that contemporary society rely heavily upon the activities of government to government agencies and activities of private organizations through corporations. of private and public sector organizations can vary in size, but except for the smallest, they require employees to carry out their activities. these employees possess information, not otherwise available regarding misconduct, incompetence, corruption and dangers and risks connected with organizations that employ them. employees and employers, therefore, they see whistleblower laws as changing the

relationship tween them. if whistleblower laws restructure the workplace, this reduction in the power of employers invites widespread and lasting opposition to these laws. this perspective invites the consideration of the interested employers who can argue that it is the public interest, not the interest of employees that must be considered. thus, it is that employee who must approve the entitlement to protection and the employee in a setting where they normally face resources of the employer alone. the other perspectives are information based. about employment perspective is not. in the employment perspective that emphasis is on the employment relationship and that relationship incorporates interest in bureaucratic secrecy. secrecy that is asserted to be justified because of the need for rational decision-making and preservation of management prerogative. this perspective contains other difficulties as well.

it incorporates the procedural and administrative mechanism of employment. these administrative and procedural mechanisms usually benefits employers. it requires the determination of who is an employee and it requires the determination as to whether retaliation takes place through an employment -based action both of these requirements invite subterfuge and abuse. ..

disclosure of information held by the government. a principle justification for this disclosure is sustaining democratic accountability. democratic accountability involves political and legal accountability and open government lauds support both types of accountity. ing nor an of the action of government officials makes criticismes is less likely and civil see site groups will organize for -- and use democratic procedures for change. as to legal accountability, the accountability of government officials on the one hands

requires an understanding and requires information about the conduct of those officials. the open government perspective introduces a dispute about the role of government. one view of the role of government is a limited view that in order to preserve the realm for private activity and choice. the other more activist view of government says the democratic state must dread societal maladies that individual bz unable to resolve. the activist view sees the individual at -- from which the individual must be protected by the government. both views identify corruption as a threat to the mission of government. the open government affiliates whistleblower protection with anticrunches movement and that at slow cat democratic

accountability and disclosure in contrast to -- open government is information-based. nothing in this prospective necessarily requires that protection apply only to employees. the market regulation or transparency perspective. this per searchtive --' considering open markets. the know of capital internationally requires an assessment of political risks and argues for knowledge of the frequency of corruption. the lack of transparency of markets or of government can be a surrogate for the likelihood of corruption. corruption distorts markets. for example, corruption in governments distorts dome markets and international markets. whistleblower protects are information provisions that help to support efficient markets.

such provisions become part of any corruption efforts in man countries in international economic organizations such as the world bank and reminyl development banks. although concerned with protection of markets, this perspective implicates misconduct by government officials as well. as the open government perspective can apply to common government disclosure. this protection need nod apply to employees because a number of individuals possess -- hello? -- it is out of my voice suddenly disappeared. the protections need to be -- need not be limited to employees because a number of individuals possess information relevant to the evaluation of markets. for example, the interamerican convention beginnings corruption

extends it protections for disclose sures to, quote, public servants and private citizens. the breach of fiduciary duties by corporate officials often involve the suppression of information or the presentation of false information. this concealment and faction of information distorts markets, particularly markets in corporate securities. while the open government perspective can be seen as an information based approach to the accountability of government the market regulation perspective can be seen as an information-based approach to the accountability of markets. in response to the great deport angeles of 1929, the new deal used information disclose sure as a method of market regulation two recent examples emphasize this approach and the increasing importance of whistleblower protection. the sarbanes oxly act responded in whistle more provision to the

failure of enron and worldcom, failures caused by accounting fraud. sharon what continues, named the "time" person of the year along with cynthia cooper, not a corporate fraud whistleblower, sought to inform corporate officials of the fraudulent practices. unfortunately for her, all of the officials she approached were deeply involved in the fraud. the legislative history of the whistleblower provision of the sarbanes-oxley act refers to the role of sharon watkins. the football cry of 2008 led to whistleblower protections in the dodd frank act. the provision contained important innovations innovation and reflect the importance that was attached to whistleblower protection as a regulation of markets. health and safety regulation. in the view of many reflect an importance beyond the integrity of financial markets. the loss of human life and human

suffering of these deaths and injuries demand effective regulation of health and safety. the inadequacy of industry standards and industry after industry has generated a wealth of statutes. the information disparity between regulators and regulated industries i accepted as a principle reason for regulatory failure. this information deficit disables regulation. beginning at least with the mine, health and safety act of 1977, whistleblower protect has been used as a tool for ensuring adequate information regarding work place risks or public safety through protected disclosures to regulators. many environmental and health and safety statutes contain whistleblower protections. important whistleblower provisions are included in the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 and the food safety modernization act of

2011. since 2000, congress has enacted or significantly amended more private sector whistleblower provisions than any comparable period. federal, private sector whistle-blowers now -- laws now cover tens of millions of private sector dish -- employees. the human rights perspective. freedom of expression has made an important role in the development of whistleblower protection in the united states in 1968, in pickerring vs. board of education, the united states supreme court applied the first amendment to protect public employees employees who made disclosures to the pentagon. the act that covers million of federal employees sought to victim did indicate constitution al rights but substitute it statutory 'standards for the vague balancing test in the first amendment in this sense

the u.s. whistleblower rests on the human right of free. of spiff. this gives whys blower connection a strong connection to human rights law. both article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights rigd article 13 of the american convention on human rights protect free to expression. the right has been entered by thecourt of american rights in uncase the court held the right of freedom of expression gives the individual the right to receive information about the government and imposes upon the government an obligation to provide information to citizen is. international human rights contains a large body of ideals, principles and arguments, powerful international organizations support the development of human rights. under many human rights conventions, signatoriy are bound by the decision of

judicial body charged with interpreting the convention. for example, decision of the european court on human right have helped to develop human rights in britain. -- excuse me -- whistleblower rights in britain. a human rights approach rests rely ago freedom of information is more likely to encompass opinion. therefore, this perspective supports a broader scope of protections and under more lenient standards than reasonable belief. the freedom of expression applies to public disclosures this perspective more than the others is likely to protect public disclosures. the principle of the indevicibility of human rights would protect disclosures addressing fundamental issues of human rights. the human rights perspective is not instrumentalist, with them protection is grant ted serve some other value or interest. a human rights analysis focuses

less on human rights as a way to implement other values or to accomplish worth while goals but sailors these rights represent basic human values worthy of protection. the task of break through power is not an easy one. whistleblower law is often seen as a way of doing so. to understand the weaknesses of whistleblower law but more importantly to appreciate the possibilities requires an understand ago these perspectives. because of these perspectives matter, examination of them helps us to see the weaknesses of whistleblower law and appreciate possibilities for change. each of these perspectives enables and limits whistleblower protection and examination encourages us to seek significant change. by the way, for the students i'd like to give a warning. that walk is be very careful what you do when you're 26 years old.

when i was 26 years old, i turned down a couple jobs and took a job with ralph nader in washington, and one of the tasks that he charged me with was looking at the federal civil service and one aspect of it that i came to particularly focus on was the need for whistleblower protection for federal employees. so now, some 40 years later, i'm still working on the same topic that i was assigned then. so, just an alert. please be extremely careful what you start with when you're 26 years old. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, robert vaughn. so, maybe there's still hope for edward snowden. before we move on i wanted to

just do a couple of housekeeping notes. after the next speaker we are going to be circulating these note cards to members 0 the audience. if you have questions, please write one question per card, write legibly and we'll collect them and ralph nader will address them during the last session on the agenda, and then after that he will be available out at the book table to sign copies of books people may have bought. all right. our next speaker is going to address public sentiment and social change. he is professor of politics and chair of urban and environmental policy at -- sorry -- chair of the urban environmental policy department at ox occidental

college. he is author of the 100 greatest americans of the 20th century, a social justice hall of fame, and he has also led the successful minimum wage campaign in pasadena, california. please welcome, peter dryer. [applause] >> i want to first address the students from hood college that are here. actually want to particularly address the women from hood college who are here. the women from hood knowledge college, can cow raise you hands? okay, put them down if want to ask you a question. couple of our played sports in high school? raise your hand. okay. and how many of you didn't play sports in high school? okay. so, around the country i ask this question all the time when

i'm talking to college students. turns out between a third and a half of all the women in college that played sports in high school, sometimes more than that, and roughly a quarter to a third of them now my intercollegiate sports in college, and they take that for grant, that choice. depends on their talent and will but they determine they have the right to do that. and that right is something that is relatively new. the right to play sports for women in high school and in college. let me ask you another question, and this can be for any of the students from hood college. how many of you know who billy jean king was? race your hand. one person. okay. so, that to me reflects an important reality that we take for granted the achievements of movements of the past to the extent that we take them so for granted we don't know who the people were that were responsible for making the

changes. billy jean king was not only one of the greatest tennis players but was active in the women's movement and testified before congress on behalf of title 9, which is the law that made it possible for young women today to play high school and college sports. and so many of the radical ideas from the past, once considered utopian, radical. socialist, crazy, impractical, are now things we take for granted. and those things include social security, minimum wage, women's right to vote, the right of works toine union, progressive income texas, consumer and environmental protection laws, national parks, government subsidized health care, same-sex marriage, black president and a woman president. all of those were once considered radical ideased. so the radical idead of one generation are often the common sense of the next generation.

hough did that happen? in order to understand that we have to understand where we have been, where we are and where we're going, and for those of you that demoralize or dense by the current plate sal situation, have no fear, this, too, will pass. movement makes change. movements make is u it possible are us to dream dreams and make it possible for people to think that radical idea today well by taken for grandded by our children and grandchildren. dr. king says the arc of the moral universe is long but bends towards justice but he forth tot to say, who is going to bends and it make it possible for the arc to bend? these are the people i want to you beside it to very quickly, big overview of the movement of the 20th century has made our lives a lot better, whose shoulders we stand on, for whom we often forget. victor burger was the first socialist congress person from milwaukee in 1911 he introduced

this crazy idea the congress called old age insurance. the got one vote for the bill. that was his own vote. but 25 years later, during the new deal, during the franklin roosevelt administration we adopted social security. the radical idea of victor burger became the common sense of our ideas today. these three women were part of the leadership of the. ment house movement that created the fight for -- against slums s and against sweat shops in big cities mostly upper middle class women that moved into the immigrant -- and they fought for the rights of immigrants, they helped to organize unions and today we would call consumer groups and they created things like the minimum wage for women and laws protecting people from slum housing. the triangle factory fire of 1911 mobilized a big movement. 145 immigrant young teenaged

girls were killed in the fire in new york, but there was a protest movement after it. francis perkins, al smith, the governor of new york, wagner, were activists. one person was a woman nailed an morgan, the daughter of the rich ed person in the world, j.p. morgan but decide shed wanted to be on the side of the working class women so the showed up with her rich friendses at the picket line. rose cooperate believe this upper class woman in fur was out there in the middle of the winter picketing with the working class women ask called them the mink brigade. but they were people who were solidarity. that's how eleanor roosevelt first became politicized by the battle over the triangle fire. there will people faking robber bare rones, muckraking recorders and writers, who took on

standard oil, there was women's rights movement. this is 2016. exactly 100 years ago next month, two important things happened. one is that margaret sanger opened the first birth control clinic in america in brooklyn for which she was arrested because it was against the law, and jeanette racken was the first woman ethrowing congress in 1916. things thing wes now take fog granted birth control and women in congress were revolutionary a 100 years ago, workers rights. workers soot in the woolworth in new york and in the detroit and flint pham factories to get the right to unionize. the sit-in movement which took its idea from the workers movement brought a civil rights, the right to vote, the right to accommodation, the environmental justice movement, challenge and changed the law and introduced the clean air act, the clean

water act, the environmental protection act of 1970. these are all radical idead at the time. the consumer protection movement led by mr. nader but also by a woman named frances kelsy without whom many of my generation would be thalidomide baby. she was a doctor at the drug and food administration and she stopped the drug companies from allowing -- from allow thing drug companies to sell this very dangerous drug. thalidomide, which saved millions of loves. tony mizaki was a lead are of the movement for workplace safety and happened creation the osha in 1970. if you have not seep the movie about karen silkwood with meryl streep you should. she happened fight for workplace safety. and more represently and today's

environment, you still have the right to protect the right of women to have abortions. women others equality in general. there's the movement for immigrant rights today and the dreamers' movement. they've already got an number of states to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition, an incredibly popular law in those states buzz we still node to get the dream act passed in congress. the voting rights act passed in 1965 and we're still fighting for voting rights across the country and you see that happen in north carolina in particular. it's been a movement for gun protection, gun control over the last few years. the upper right-hand corner is the protest in newtown, connecticut, and the lower left is the unfortunately ceremony that the president went to around the seven people who were killed in charleston, south carolina.

"black lives matter" has helped alert to us reality of racial profiling and the number of shoot office african-americans has not gone up in the last ten years but our awareness has because of cell phones, and body cameras, because of increasing media coverage, and so now there is a movement for changing in police practices. "occupy" "occupy wall street" disappeared bus their ideas continued. you can't kill an idea. the idea of the one percent and the 99 percent has last evidence much longer than the movement. there is nobody in america, not a consecutive north a liberal, not a progressive, who doesn't understand what the one percent and the 99 percent means. the ideas of "occupy" occupy wall street and the bauer about the bauer of the rich and the power of big banks stayed with us and it's helped shape our movement. the hearing last week where the ceo of wells fargo bank took a grilling from both democratic

and republican senators, john stumptf, the recent version of "occupy" wall treat. the movement to raise the became -- if you told me five years ago that any city in america would have today a $15 an hour minimum wage, would have the thought you were crazy but in the upper right-hand side corner is the mayor of seattle, signing a law two years ago to have a minimum wage in that city of $15 an hour. there are now dozens of cities around the country, including my own city of pasadena and our neighbor, los angeles, and eight other cities in southern carr that adopted $15 ming wage laws because omovement of walmart wores and fastfood workers and janitors and many other workers fighting for improving the minimum wage and low wage work. the big issue of the next ten years will be student debt. students are now sitting in

protesting, organizing, senator warren has a bill to address the issue, both democratic candidates for president, hillary clinton and bernie sanders erring both made this a big issue because it resonates witch a lot of people. a big movement around the country to stop sweat shop labor by having students refuse to beeshires and toronto shirts and sweatshirted with the name of their college on it. there's a factory that was created by the united students get sweep e sweat shopped in dominican republic. you should make sure your book stores sells the products from alter gracia where they plea times the local minimum wage and have union and good working place safety condition, the few factory thursday the world that is like that but it shows it can

be done. obviously a big movement around climate change. dozens of colleges have already voted to divest from fossil fuels from their endevelopment. we stopped the keystone pipeline, al a russell of activism, not because the arc of the universe was again to bend towards justice. 70% of the menopome layings believes same-sex marriage should be legal. a tram change in a short period of time as a result of litigation, protests, organizing, and changes in public sympathy. all of these movements have three things in commonality. and those are thing that are true of movements of the left or the right. and number one is that every moment has organizers and activists that think strategically and people that

take their advice and follow their guidance, a few of them, eugene debs. alex paul, walter ruth, the union leader, norman thomas, started something call the highlander school in tennessee. detroit organizers, the leader of the catholic worker movement, betty who led the first national organization for women, fanny lou hamer, active in civil rights movement. the farm workers movement and had to have people who can inspire us and with their poetry, their artistry, writing, philosophy, using their thoughtic ability to protest moat southern justice and change, the first feminist short story, a photographer who went around the country exposing the

abuses of child labor, sip claire who exposed the crisis in the meat packing industry in his book. john steinbeck, whose book about farmworkers, "grapes of wrath" raised our conscious not. woodie guthrie who sang what shoot be the national an them, "this land is your land. "langston hughes, the great poet, paul robson, the great singer, athlete, and broadway and film star. arthur miller the playwright. the weavers, jackie robinson who used his athletic ability to fight for racial justice. and martin luther king, phil oaks the folk sink who shang against the war in vietnam. pete searer and bruce

springsteen, muhammad ali who risked his career by protesting the war in vietnam. and michael gaye, and dr. seuss, white house books were about moral outrage and if you read between the lines you'll see lots of radical ideas the n the childrens are books. rachel carson who oppose -- exposed the standards of ddt and pesticides and the great biologist who exposed the way we produce our consumer products, harm this environment. adrian rich, thepot, fem feminist. billy jean king, feminist tennis player, and leslie gore. she was a rock 'n' roll singer, people think aisle crazy to tut per up here. she wrote this song and sang the song in 1963 called "you don't own me."

which is an early feminist song that people don't recognize. most famous for "it's my party and i'll cry if i want to" but she should be most famous for "you don't own me." bill moyer, michael moore. every movement needs people who irspine us and give us hope and we have to he plate:allies. those are people in government and who work with activism from people in office, like -- john peter, the governor of illinois, who was willing at the behess of japan adams and frances perkins to introduce fact factory legislation in illinois. and johnson, the governor of california, introduced the

minimum wage law and the women's right to vote. franklin roosevelt, the mayor of new york, la guardia. bella abzug. harold washington, the radical mayor of chicago. paul wellstone, the iconic senator from minnesota. harvey milk, the first openly gay elected official. bernie sanders, john lewis, civil rights leader and elizabeth warren. these people have change ode our lives, changed our mind and helped -- i just want to give you final lay portrait of where are we now. what are americans thinking today. 77% of us think there's too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. 74 think corporations have too much political influence.

60% say the economic system favors the wealthy. 84% think money has too much influence in politics. 85% think we need to overhaul the campaign finance system. 72% favor adopting tougher rules for wall street. 50%, stronger regular laying's greenhouse emissions. 80%, corporations don't pay a fair share of tax, wealthy people don't pay they're fair share of tax. 58% favor raisings tax on the richest people in koch. 66% think wealth should be eevenly distributed. 69% say the government should reduce the gap between the rich and everybody else. 64% the government should reduce poverty. 75% we should increase the minimum wage to 12 3509 by 2020. 63% think we should increase the minimum wage to 15% by 2020 and 80% think that we should require

employers to provide paid family leave. 71% favor a public option for health insurance that can be with a private insurance company. 67% favor lifting the income tax cap on social security, require higher income workers to play social security taxes on all the becames and 73% feel the government should fund preschool program for are a children and 63% support debt free university tuition. welcome to finland. welcome to denmark. welcome to sweden. if the american people hat their way would we live in a progressive social democracy. how do we get from there to another world? that's the lesson of the movements of the 20th century, dare to struggle, dare to win. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, peter drier.

hope we're all feeling motivated and reenergized. before i move on, i'd like to ask that we pass out these note cards for anybody who has a question. please raise your hand and we will make sure that you get a card to write your question on, and i will be choosing a few of them at the end. to respond to. in in [inaudible conversations]

>> all right, our next speaker is going to be talking about training for change. he is a senior strategist with national people's action, and he has been a community organizer for 15 years on the neighborhood city, state, and national levels in beth the united states and the uk. he has organized successful campaigns on neighborhood infrastructure, immigrants rights, worker rights and wall street reform. he is currently serve as bank accountability campaign director at national peoples action, and i'm informed that he has built a bridge over a moat surrounding a jp morgan chase meeting and has stormed across dressed as

robinhood. [applause] >> clearly someone found my bioown internet from five years ago and ran with it. which is great. so, thanks for having me. i'm jordan, a senior strategist as peoples action, formerly known as imagine peoples action. as a result of a merger between npa and eye lines for just society and u.s. action. we are a network of people power community organizations around the country. there are some 15 member organizations in 30 states collectively we have organizers in 100 cities. about 600 professional community organizers work in those cities with people on issues from

housing, justice, climate, environmental issues, to mass incarceration and policing, and about a million members across the country. so, people's action, we're a racial economic justice organization and our raison d'être is we feel there are three simultaneous big crises happening in the country. one that the planet is in crisis, that every summer is the hottest summer ever and that can't continue. that the economy that we're living in is based on extraction, based on unaway inequality that getting worse and worse every year. and that our democracy is broken the number of people who have real influence in politics is shrinking all the time.

so, our -- one our assumptions is we believe that the people who are affected most by these issues are the experts on these issues elm the peoples whose voices are too frequently missing from the rooms where decisions are made that affect all of our lives. so, i started with national peoples action running our financial industry accountability campaign work. in 2008. and sometime previous i had been working with an organization in chicago called the northwest neighborhood federation. two members of the organization, which is a local community organization working on local neighborhood quality of life issues.

jose torres and sonya cruz were cousins, and they knew each other, they had a fine relationship. and were working on things like getting the parks cleaned up, getting a neighborhood training -- job training center built in the neighborhood. things like that. and the organizers who were working with them built deep relationships with these folks, and learned at around the same time that both of them were in foreclosure. they were -- their stake in the community was under threat. and the stood to loose their home -- lose their homes and what is interesting is they didn't know that about each other. they were so just buried in debt and shame about they fact they

were so deep in debt. they had made a mistake, they had bought odd their means. further conversation with the organizeesers and more and more with each other, learn that they had both taken predatory loops, explodings option arms that we know now were concentrated in communities of color, in low income and working class communities that they targeted. latinos, blacks, and elderly folks, with poisonous loan products. and they did this systematically, right? like wells fargo, bank of america, city bank, all paid like big settlements because years on the line -- down the line because the evidence was there.

so more and more people in our network started telling us stories like this. and it was -- it wasn't just mortgages. things lie payday loans, car title loans, anything to do with debt and the financial industry, where they were really -- and this continues -- targeting are our communitieses with these poisonous loan products. this is -- you can call it reverse redlining or national people's action was born in the fight against red lining in the 1970s. redlining is a practice that -- a long history but in the '70s before they had computer maps they had actually maps where they literally draw a red line around the black community and not make loans there. so, it stopped black folks for generations from building wealth in their communities. so, that campaign spread throughout the organization and

and prior to the big financial crash in 2007, we had already protested at ben bernanke's house, and got a meeting with him. and he told us in that meet -- we told him, thousands of people in our neighborhoods are losing their homes. every other house is abandoned in our communes. this crisis. he said, there's no crisis. the market will self-correct. and then later that year issue literally, lehman brothers, aig got a bailout. the rest is history. that's my earlier point. the people who are affected by the issues are the experts on these issues, and they saw this coming, and if we invest in their ability to work together, to organize, to come together and build power, and actually listen to them, then we can make

a lot of good things happen and event bad things from happening. so, these conversations between people, they don't happen by themselves. it takes organizing, especially as the trend is that the social fabric of our communities is disintegrating. the trends are toward more isolation, individual action versus collective action. so we need to fight that actively. so, after the crash in 2008, a lot of us were kind of frozen, and you -- tell me if you remember it this way. for like a good year, there was no protests against -- nothing visible, nothing major against the banks and the financial industry. right? a lot of stories about -- there's a narrative brewing about how the financial crash

was the fault of brown people taking -- trying too buy too much house. and that narrative started to really take hold, and there's -- and we said, you know what? we need to -- we cannot let our own people, let alone the rest of the world, believe that. we need to move people from private shame, private infrastructure to public anger. so in 2009, we learned that the american bankers association was going to have a convention in chicago. chicago of all places, right? super hard hit city. by the financial crash. and we said, we can't let them good away -- get away with that. so we called thousands of people across the region and across the country, and a thousand of them answered the call, and came in

from iowa, from new york, from nevada, from wisconsin, michigan, from all over, and we decided we're going to have our own convention across the river from theirs. and we're going to have this conversation with our people about who actually is to plame for the financial crash. and who is actually to blame for all these foreclosures and these communities being decimated. and we're going to invite our friends. so, like elizabeth warren, presenator les liz warren came and poke with us about the crazy idea she had about consumer financial protection bureau that would regulate banks on behalf of consumers. and we took those lessons and marched. we hit -- did action's bank of america in downtown chicago. actions on all the bank offices in their biggest branches

downtown, and so the first day we had a thousand people, second day, 2,000 people, the third day, 5,000 people at the footstep of the american bankers association conference. and we also had a few hundred people hidden in hotel rooms at their conference who, during the conference, were able to get inside the hotel and disrupt their conference and get in their faces and tell them mat what really happening in our communities. powerful action. but what is key is that nothing like this had happened since the crash. right? and so all the media really for years after the fact we saw our people, folks like jose and sonya, on b roll that was used on news clips to show that people were angry at the bangs and it was really this very simple thing that was missing

from the conversation was actual evidence that people are up in arms and that's where we saw the change of narrative, the beginning of the change in the narrative from this is the people's fault to this is wall street's doing. and i wish there were a time here so i knew how much time i had left. five minutes? cool. so, the jpmorgan-chase action was a great one. turns out lots of folks had mortgage wiz jpmorgan-chase, got predator mortgages from jp morgan choice and we decided to let them know that their shareholder meeting, which when we went to see the location where that's held, they're going to have itself not in new york, where they usually had it, but going to have it at their corporate husband, in columbus, ohio -- corporate headquarters, in columbus, ohio, which is the largest building in the world after the pentagon. and it's this giant building

sounded by giant parking lot, surrounded by -- i kid you not -- a moat. like a drainage ditch but there to keep -- so we said, moat. that's perfect. and as the person who introduced me stated, we built a draw bridge and we dressed like robin hood and said we're going to take back what is ours. and again, generated lots of news, visual evidence about the fact that the people were angry at the banks. so, there's another note i want to make about this, which is there's a rich and important interplay between what you call maybe ogan yack -- organic

social moments and institutionalized community organizing and be see that play out again and again where the big splashy and very resonant movement isn't enough by itself. doesn't last by itself. and that professionalized community organizing isn't enough by itself, like you need both. you see the if the with the privilege speaker named the "occupy wall street" movement and others have been able to turn those to translate the idea that the 99% versus 1% into things like reel traffic on the fight for $15 minimum wages. we see it in the huge amount of political space that was opened

by the peoples climate march in new york city, 400,000 people, taking the streets of new york to fight against climate change. created tons of momentum for organizers on theground working on those issues and not at all least "black lives matter," and i'll give a very brief anecdote about that. so, back in illinois, anita alvarez for years was the state's attorney there. she is the -- famously suppressed the video of the murder of laquan mcdonald. and was responsible for policies that incourse -- incarcerated tens of thousands of black folks in illinois and she had an opponent, kim fox, who grew up in the projects in chicago,

believed in restorative justice, wants to work to heal communities rather than punish them. and the byp100, the black youth project, got on the streets, did amazing direct actions, got media take because young black peep sighting for their own rights and at the same time, our members in illinois, the people's lobby, fair economy illinois, illinois people's action, southsider organizerrers for liberation, established community groups, they were out there on the doors, knocking on doors for anita alvarez and produced more volunteer and -- hours for her campaign than any other organization. and we won that election, and kim fox is now the state's attorney in illinois. both the movement and the organizing were critical and

insufficient for that moment, and we think there are really important lessons to learn from that when we can take movements and organize them and bring it together. so, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, jordan. for reminding us all to have a little fun while we are at it. our next speaker knows how to do that. and he also knows a little bit about overcoming civic apathy, which is the topic of his speech. he has been named by the atlantic as one of the 100 most influential figures in american history and by "time" and "life" magazines a one of the most influential americans of the 20th century. helped us drive safer cards, eat

healthier food, and drink cleaner water and work in safer environment ford more than four decaded. we are here in part to commemorate the publication 50 years of of his best-selling book "unsafe at any speed" which led to congressional hearings and led to establish. of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act. he was also instrumental in the creation of the orb sharks epa, the consumer product safety commission and the national highway transportation safety administration. his recent books include unstoppable, return to sundayer, the good fight, and the best seller, 17 traditions. he writes a syndicated column, has his own radio show gives lectures and interviews year-around. please welcome, ralph nader. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. i have an awesome subject today, called overcoming civic apathy. and obviously we really haven't been able to find the various answers. there's some luminous exceptions. and that includes yours truly. look at all the elbow room you have today. so i want to start with what i call the civic personality. you know how they say in sports there are lot of super athletes but just a few really makes a difference at the end of a game. it isn't because they have superior physical qualities. they have physical qualities others have. they have the factor, that will to win. this athletic victory personality. well, in the civic society, we have to develop that kind of

civic personality. and it's something we all know in term of talents. people who have a certain perceived sense of injustice, that is a good start. when they don't have to have -- about certain changes that need to be made. right where they live they are being victimized or oppressed or harmed. i'd like to start with three very short stories involving isaac newton, william blake and albert i'm stein, and at one time at a gathering isaac newton was asked, why are you show meche mother brilliant than other scienceties and the looked at her and he said, well, i'm not really that much more brilliant than my fellow scientists. i just have a perhaps greater ability to concentrate longer on

a problem in my mind. concentration. pull that out. concentration. william brick in the 18th 18th century, and early 19th 19th century, great artist and poet, he was at a social gathering and someone said, mr. blake, with whom are you living these days? and he looked at the person and said, with whom am i living? i'm living with my imagination. beautiful that out. imagination. then albert einstein once said i have no special gifts. just have a passionate cure curiosity. pull out the word curiosity. now you ask yours, people who are actively engaged in building a more justice society and a more functional democracy, usually have those trait traits

at one level or another. they're curious because they show up. all over the country people are telling me, we can't get people to meetings, can't get people to vote. account get people to rallies. can't get people for neighborhood gatherings about a neighborhood problem. it is very pronouncement these people are increasingly living in virtual reality when they're not busy trial to make end -- trying to make ends meet and surviving. they looking at screens, young people especially, looking at screens, and that's not quite the way to get people out. you get them inflammed, tell them before the meetings, but getting people to meet people, that's when things are done, is extremely difficult. i was at a gathering once in massachusetts on the civic organization, and a young man in his early 30s said i'm from new jersey. 14,000 people down in the press

area, a lot of empty factories and so forth, and things in disrepair. and i couldn't believe how the town government wouldn't do anything about it. so i decided to go to a town meeting. so he gets up, goes a town meeting, he's the only one there. so he says, maybe it was super bowl night or something. so he goes to the next town meeting. he's the only one there in the audience. so i said to him, you got 10,000 adults in the town and you seem to not most miami in city want. they want a functioning city. don't wam to break their action ox sell on a pot hole. i asked him what if 100 people came in? he said it would change the whole town. so 100 people -- apathetic

people have always fascinated me. i actually dream about them. i try too understand them. number one, they're clearly in the majority. number two, they gripe a lot. they have all kinds of complaints, sometimes it's seen at cynical but they really complain about a lot of things. quietly, they don't go out and the village square but they have a sense of injustice like everyone else. thirdly, they almost are unwilling to break their routine. they have their routine. they have their hobbies, work hard, races their family. they do a lot more difficult things in life than spending a few hours a month on their civic responsibilities. they raise children. try that one for difficulty. they take care of an ailing parent or grandparent. they have who jobs. they have to pay daycare, they have to community.

they overcome accidents that they weren't anticipating. and yet, when -- can you at least come could town meeting in you want something changed here. you wouldn't the school repaired. you want the drinking water cleaned up. i'm not trying persuade you. just can you come, show up? nope. well, can we discuss it? yeah. well, why don't you show up? you think i'm -- just because i'm 'apathetic i'm student? here why. ... because i'm seen as a troublemaker. number four, even if i had the

time, and i wasn't listed by moonbeams and i don't care what others thought about me, it would make any difference because the big boys are going to decide anyway. those are the four rules of apathy. so we decided during the campaign in 2002 take it to the next creative step. so i proposed on the website, and it is still nadir.org. i've left it up for these purposes, the creation of the american society of epidemics -- [laughter] i invited people to join. and i said in interest of being as inclusive as possible, the campaign is inviting membership into new american society of apathetic. membership is free and simple, appropriate enough, with no rights because societies dedication to no exertions whatsoever.

except to recite the solemn oath of the apathetic to yourself. and here's the oath of the apathetic. quote, as a member of the american society of apathetic's, i solemnly swear and declared that i will endure any injustice accept any abuse, absorb any disrespect, suffer any deprivation, concede any exclusion come into any toxics and avoid any public responsibilities in order to defend my inalienable right to apathy, so help me, my descendents and my country. end quote. we've got no takers. [laughter] someone told me that we put them in a conflict of interest. it they made the oath of apathetic, it would no longer be considered apathetic. they have standards, you know. [laughter] so let's find out what works in

the past in terms of civic engagement. people are people everywhere. they all have the burdens and their pressures. why some people in the past show up? why did six women in 1840 short and foremost in upstate new york to start the women's suffrage movement? what was it about? six women? do you know what they're up against? all these international businesses and so on it didn't like women because they thought to end child labor and consumer advocates, the price of food for thought and so when. why did people show up to vote for the liberty party against slavery in 1840? that was the first party of any size to be against slavery. why did all those workers have the sit in strikes in flint, michigan, and warren, michigan, in the 1930s, putting off a lot of it on the line?